G20 2008 Plans - Emergency Meeting

G20 2008 Plans - Emergency Meeting

www.g8.utoronto.ca

At the emergency G20 meeting scheduled for October 11, 2008, the participants are planning to discuss recent developments in global financial markets and work toward solutions to the current crisis and longer-term reforms to international financial architecture...

U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson... is organizing a special G20 meeting... a special meeting of the G20 that will include senior finance officials, central bankers, and regulators from key emerging economies...

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
G7 Meeting on 11 October to Discuss Crisis



Title edit per request

[edit on 12/10/08 by masqua]

Additional Title edit per request


[edit on 11/10/2008 by Badge01]

Forgive me, but this is BIG. I believe I have uncovered the plans for a new global financial architecture. It is being thrashed out at a meeting today!

Go to page 7 and read "Financial Regulation and Supervision" to get an idea of where this is headed.

“Today’s global concerns require a level of international co-ordination that is fundamentally different from any other period in history, and the creation of the structures that will oversee the economy of the 21st century has been delayed too long.”

The G7, IMF and FSF do not give enough voice to some of the world’s largest emerging economies and it is dangerous because the next financial crisis could take place in one of those countries...

The financial meltdown in the United States cannot be tackled by the G8 alone, but needs to involve the G20, British prime minister Gordon Brown said. The G20 is better suited to deal with the problem, he indicated...

With the financial markets becoming more global, regulation and supervision needs to become more global as well. “This requires us and others to work closely with the key international coordinating agencies, the Financial Stability Forum, the IMF, the Basel Committee, the G20 and others, to identify key risks and vulnerabilities,” Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said.

This document was published within the last 24 hours, here:

www.g8.utoronto.ca...

www.g8.utoronto.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)

Title edited upon request (x2)

[edit on 11/10/2008 by Badge01]

Although I've only had a quick skim through the article, I find it interesting that for the first G20 meeting in 1999, the United Kingdom delegates are said to be from "United Kingdom/International Financial and Monetary Committee".

Another clue pointing to the British elite having a far bigger say in the running of the world than they're letting on?
The general consensus among the British people these days is that the Royal Family and all their friends have little-to-no influence nowadays, and that the 'elected' government is running the show.
A scrap of evidence suggesting otherwise perhaps?

thank you for the post and bringing the coverage of the g7 (and now the g20) up. I have been scouring the main stream media all day to find out some 'substantial' information about the outcomes but nothing was mentioned apart from the "we will take all necessary steps" statement - which i think is a whole lot of # in order to cover up the real decisions which were made.

The thought of the g20 meeting and the resulting roll out has me very concerned. I will not be surprised if the 'nwo' is unveiled shortly.

reply to post by selfisolated


Although you've only had a few moments to read the document you've come up with a fascinating angle. Very thought-provoking.

All I can say is read, read, read.

You are reading the NWO agenda, and the decisions are being taken NOW.

this is huge, the holy grail of nwo documents to date!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

help..

its becoming reality!!!!!!

Approach everything with a cool head.

Right now what's REALLY happening is the World financial leaders are panicking...why? Because if this whole monster comes tumbling down, they're MOST afraid of the secrets that will come to the surface as a result. The G20 meeting is as much of a grasp at straws as would be the G7 or the 700 billion bailout.

There's one thing for certain about anyone with an NWO (or any mass manipulation for that matter) agenda...they put VERY serious stock into what the romans learned the hard way:

"Roman senator # 1: Shouldnt we make all slaves wear armbands?"

"Roman senator # 2: No, lest they all see how many of them are, we would have a revolt"


I seriously don't believe that "THIS" is the start of the NWO Declaration of Dictatorship


AB1

reply to post by pause4thought


the new Bretton woods i what i am reading

what with nations nationalising banks and nations being subjevt to regional authority

i wouldnt be surprised to see some more regional central banks and that they take on the "nationalisation" and funded by the world bank/IMF

david

reply to post by alphabetaone

Right now what's REALLY happening is the World financial leaders are panicking...

I have to say I see the exact opposite: years (some would say decades and even centuries) of planning and scheming.

The G20 alone has been going since 1999. Bilderberg a lot longer.

The measures outlined in this document are very thoroughly planned out indeed. Getting 20 leading industrial nations to buy into an entirely new and global financial system is about as big as a project can get. The only thing that could top it would gaining the agreement of the rest of the world's national governments.


reply to post by drevill


I see you are reading and reflecting. I agree this is movement on a tectonic scale.

Bretton Woods System



[edit on 11/10/08 by pause4thought]

reply to post by pause4thought


And of course, you could well be right! It's really a 50/50 shot for either of us to be on the mark on this one, you know?

I think what will be a key sign, is the markets themselves. Watch who and where the money is made from this financial Faux Pas....yet, if we find ourselves in declining economical times and things get worse, my bet would be that it truly was panic because, without the predominant financial authority, there goes their agenda. However, IF "all of a sudden" those powers tend to reverse the market in what I would deem an unrealistically short amount of time to proclaim that "yes!!! we fixed it!!!", then ya know what, you could WELL be right on brother....


AB1

reply to post by alphabetaone


I appreciate your clarity of thought.

One interesting aspect of this document is that although it is predominantly related to finance and economic systems there is evidence of a more wide-ranging agenda.

Take this, from the introduction, for example:

The Group of Twenty (G20) finance ministers and central bank governors was
established in 1999 in the area of finance... The first G20 gathering, hosted by Germany and co-chaired by Canada, took place in Berlin on December 15-16, 1999. The G20’s members are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union.

The work of the G20 finance group has led to discussions of other “20” groups. Since
2005, under the Gleneagles Dialogue, 20 ministers from the fields of environment and energy have met, most recently in Japan, to discuss the issues associated with global warming.

Also, did you notice how

The EU is counted as only "1" in the "G20"!

And look at this from p.9, under "Institutional Reform":

With the state of the universe increasingly ulcerous, with the Group of Eight and the United Nations Security Council hardly representative of the new global order, Mr. Paul Martin, former Prime Minister of Canada, has intensified his campaign for a new international body of 15 or 20 powers to give global governance a chance. While not divulging details, Martin said his talks with the U.S. presidential contenders, particularly the Democrat, Barack Obama, were most encouraging. “The Obama people … understand this issue. They understand that the United States has to do things differently.” The stated preference of Mr. McCain is for a league of democracies. But Mr. Martin explained that, for a new body to be effective, it can't leave out megapowers such as China. He described how his G20 campaign has picked up support from China, France, Britain and others. It's “going to happen,” he said. It's “inevitable.”

And keep reading what follows after that...







[edit on 11/10/08 by pause4thought]

what do you think of this analysis?

The assumption of a "cyclical," "mortgage crisis," has been premised, essentially, upon a lie, a lie used by the world's biggest bandits of these times, the investment bankers who had created themselves in the self-image of those predatory Lombard bankers, such as the houses of Bardi and Peruzzi, who created the general financial-economic breakdown-crisis known as the Fourteenth-Century "New Dark Age." The truth is, that this crisis had already been, from its outset in 1968-1981, a general, global breakdown-crisis of the present IMF financial-monetary system in progress.[4] No correction of this continuing, downward trend was ever seriously attempted: with the qualified exception of President Bill Clinton's interrupted intention to proceed to a much needed reform of our nation's financial architecture.

It is, as I must emphasize now, again, a crisis of the same essential cause and characteristics as that great breakdown-crisis, if in a different time, of the Fourteenth-Century European Lombard banking system, the system of investment banking houses of the type of the medieval Bardi and Peruzzi, which plunged all of Europe into a vastly genocidal "New Dark Age," then, as the present-day Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, et al., now.

That Fourteenth-Century "dark age" wiped out half of the parishes of Europe, and reduced Europe's population by about one-third, net, during a period of, chiefly, approximately a generation. A similar effect is to be expected, soon, unless culprits such as Secretary Paulson, the fox who is looting America's financial chicken-coop, and the very guilty President George W. Bush, Jr., are removed from control of financial-monetary policy now.[5]

Thus, the point which must be emphasized, repeatedly now, is that fact that the resurrection, by a degenerate turn of modern society, of a return to a global form of medieval European financial practices of usury, that over what has been now approximately two decades since the election of U.S. President George H. W. Bush, has produced the present, medieval-like result. The modern system of lunatic, speculative investment banking, revived Greenspan-style, has created, as a dominant form of essentially predatory financier interest, an intrinsically corrupt system of international financier corruption echoing those same practices of the Fourteenth-Century Lombard bankers whose practices plunged all Europe into the genocidal, Fourteenth-Century "New Dark Age."

source


[edit on 11-10-2008 by drevill]

reply to post by pause4thought


You know what I think bothers me the most? Is that they don't find it difficult to use the semantics that they do.

While sovereignty DOES without a doubt cast a certain competition among nations, by using THEIR language, they control the single most fear inducing entity on earth, the finances. If they don't want to realize the efforts of the conspiracy theorist worst nightmare coming to the forefront, you would think they would tone down the language, you know what I mean? That said, isn't part of the 'spice of life' being DIFFERENT? Do we HAVE to all subscribe to the SAME thing? Personally I like the fact that some people find it deplorable that another person will murder someone no matter WHAT the circumstance, YET, I find like with an equal amount of enthusiasm the person who DOES fight because they murdered in an effort to protect their family. (Just as a extreme example)

I can't quite get a grasp on why. Perhaps it's safe to assume that they realize that the (now dumbed down) public in it's entirety won't know. That is to say, not enough will question the intent.

AB1

Oh my oh my, I always get a little shiver when reading such a well-cited document that footnotes newspaper articles, op-eds, and letters to the editor from yesterday.

Anyone else notice the solution to global meltdown, casually mentioned:

“The lessons of subprime is – now that capital markets are truly seamless
the world over, and that there will be not one or two, but for the first time in our lives,
five or six giant economies – what is it the world must do to prevent, or at least mitigate,
the consequences of the crises they will inevitably present us with?”

Um, stop doing that 'seamless' thing?

reply to post by alphabetaone


thisis no accident

this is from 2005 (edit. sorry july 2004)

FREDDIE MAC’S IMPENDING FIASCO

The long-awaited financial update for Freddie Mac was held June 30 and proved to be less than expected. The revised numbers show that Freddie broke even for the second half of 2003, after a profitable first half. Losses from its derivatives trading -- the source of the accounting problems and of some $4.3 billion in losses in the second half of 2003 -- were the cause of the poor second-half showing. To refresh your memory, interest rates fell in the first half of 2003, and they rose in the second half. Perhaps you need not be reminded where they have gone since April of this year.

What is especially disturbing is that little guidance was given for any quarter of 2004 and, despite promises of greater transparency, management stated there would be no reporting of 2004 results until March 2005! The reason given is that the accounting is still not up to snuff. In fact, detailed financials for 2003 will not be published until September, so analysts will have to wait another three months to find out what was not said on June 30. One analyst quizzed Freddie’s CFO on what the effect of rising interest rates would have on its trillion-dollar-plus portfolio of derivatives. His astounding reply: “I don’t know.”

As I have said previously, the concern has always been that rising rates could cause Freddie to implode, much like the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund or the Orange County investment fund. Only, this time, the fallout could cause a systemwide financial panic. In any case, it is fair to say that Freddie’s stockholders are in for some sleepless nights, and Alan Greenspan and the U.S. Congress might be, too. Freddie could be just one car in the slow-motion train wreck that may be coming due to the artificially low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve in 2001.

source

[edit on 11-10-2008 by drevill]

This was planned long ago by the Fed and its NWO owners. The only way for them to take control is to make the average American beg for it and they can only do that by taking our economy down.

I bet the America bashing is bad at this meeting. I watched a MSNBC Ludlow show and one guy they had on started bashing the Fed saying how illegal they were to operate in this country and the host shut him up quick.

These clowns are going to demand that the worlds economy is not based on the dollar anymore. Welcome to the N.W.O. people.

reply to post by Sky watcher


Yes seems like the term 'sovereign wealth fund' will become more-heard in the next few weeks (not in the MSM, of course, but in the vulgar intellectual press).

Seem certain that the Fed charter will be modified to fit within a supra-national framework. This will reduce, by a large factor, possible future inter-currency variance.

Edit to add: for fans of SWFQW, consider the 'shock-testing' data these last weeks have provided, with regard to paths of capital flight between various currencies and markets. The system seems pretty solid, looks like it's a go!


[edit on 11-10-2008 by Ian McLean]

G20 2008 Plans: A citizen's analysis

[This is entirely my own opinion, I reserve the right to be mistaken (as well as repeat myself) - and welcome rebuttal]

The September 15th G20 document's stunning quick delivery (and accute relevance to affairs of October 11th), and some interesting turns of phrase, compelled me to share the following observations and opinions.

I will try to maintain the original text formatting in all cases - exceptions noted

----------------------

Preface
This report on “G20: Plans and Prospects” is compiled by the G20 Research Group largely from public sources as an aid to researchers and other stakeholders interested in the G20.

Note the phrase"

...and other stakeholders interested in the G20.

Considering the magnitude and scope of this alleged 'aid;' would one not expect to see an officially recognized list of who these 'stakeholders' are and what is the exact meaning (not definition) of the term is?

----------------------

In the Agenda of this body we find...

The work of the G20 finance group has led to discussions of other “20” groups. Since 2005, under the Gleneagles Dialogue, 20 ministers from the fields of environment and energy have met, most recently in Japan, to discuss the issues associated with global warming. On the margins of the 2008 G8 Summit in Japan in July, a gathering of the Major Economies Meeting of 16 members (MEM-16) at the summit level was held,following official level meetings of this U.S.- initiated forum starting in 2007. In both cases, their membership largely overlaps that of the G20 finance ministers.
Former Canadian prime minister Paul Martin has advocated a “Leaders 20” (L20) forum, but it has not yet been established in forms other than the MEM-16.

So this "group of 20" form of government is now self-replicating, they claim, having created 2 or 3 sibling groups.

More interesting to note, is that the driving force behind this "20-ism" is the financial group. Some may say that each of these groups is, no doubt, rife with opportunity for elite socialites to play god with the population, while simultaneously coordinating their financial empire on a global scale. Less CT-inclined might see the pattern emerging of a form of ministerial-cabinet government - one easily maintained and protected by those who are 'interested stakeholders.' Yet others might see this as a global governance opportunity, consolidating consensus based on fiscal health. Others may see it as a convenient tool applicable to the consolidation of control of global revenue flow.

Regardless of what it is, it is being engineered without the input or consent of the global population. And it is specifically devoid of any aspect of servitude to the common good. Danger Will Robinson!

----------------------

As a legacy theme, the G20 will take up South Africa’s Fiscal Space theme, focusing on the creation of fiscal space through the prioritization of government expenditures.

How does an international body, 'prioritize government expenditures' of a sovereign state?

American's are sure to be pleased when they discover their government expenditures are determined, not by congressional, or senatorial initiative, but actually by a foreign body of ministers - using local government as an agent of their agenda. U-G-L-Y!

-----------------------

As a new element of the work program, they will introduce competition in the financial industry.

So, this group, which has existed formally for nearly a decade, is ONLY NOW considering 'competition in the financial industry' in their deliberations of the global market? I guess they really wanted to keep this off the agenda! Either that, or they are completely disconnected from reality and spent most of their time socializing.

-----------------------

With both of the themes, enhancement of growth, a key concern of the G20, will be addressed.

"Enhancement" of "Growth" - specific enough for ya? This means making available funds to 'some' industries, and denying it to others, doesn't it? Look out Australia and South Africa! They're coming for you next. (Do they always target countries in which the common tongue is "the Queen's English"?

-----------------------

The paragraph that follows is replete with 'soothing platitudes' such as - [bold text is mine]:

The level of competition in the financial sector affects the efficiency of the production of financial services, the quality of financial products and the degree of innovation in the sector.

"Level" of competition - anybody wonder what the 'levels' of competition are in their opinion Did you ever consider the "production" of financial? - What do they 'produce'? Now financial services are 'products'? To which they can apply to the concept of 'innovation'?

The degree of competition in the financial sector can also influence firms’ and households’ access to financial services and external financing. Most importantly,competition in the financial sector is linked to economic growth and stability.

In addition to 'levels' of competition, there are 'degrees'. I really have to see there expansion on this topic.

After an introductory look at best practices in competition policy and the benefits to the economy more broadly highlighting possible differences between the financial and other sectors, the focus will be on the benefits and risks related to increased competition in the financial sector, the relationship between competition and financial stability, the role of regulatory frameworks, the impact of greater openness to foreign bank competition on local financial systems, the implications of consolidation for competition in the financial sector and the role played by non-bank financial institutions in promoting competition in the banking sector, among other topics. In addition, the links between competition in the financial sector and economic growth will be explored.

Well, well. There agenda sure is full of 'non-answers.'

--------------------------

... working towards a potential double dividend by meeting the energy needs that are essential for economic growth and fighting poverty,...

Why do the words 'double dividend' seem alarming? Perhaps its contextual.

...requires mobilization from governments, the private sector and the International financial institutions (IFIs).

IFI's are an element of of this 'double dividend'?

...energy is a source of poverty reduction and macroeconomic stability worldwide.

Some might argue that energy 'could' be a source of poverty reduction, etc. At the moment the 'energy' element is responsible for quite a bit of poverty - all by itself.

Some of these challenges will have distinct economic effects on developed and developing countries.

Ya think?! We are talking about redistribution here, no?

The punchline, a litany of subjects for this 'platform for discussion.' The most robust outline goes to item "b" :

Clean Energy and International Financial Markets, which includes gems like world markets for biofuels," "commoditization of biofuels," and "the international carbon market."

---------------------------

...fiscal space for growth and social inclusion...

Fiscal space for growth. Like this isn't the exact cancer that is eating away at mankind's potential. The objective of fiscal growth has, I suspect, cause more death and suffering on Earth than any other human enterprise. Interesting that they seem not to be done squeezing the theoretical "production value" out of every person on the planet.

turning to the expenditure side of the budget, specifically, to issues of quality and efficiency in public spending.

This could be construed as implying that 'public spending' is to be coldly and rationally calculated as a 'drain' on such things as 'fiscal space' - that explains the 'social inclusion' element. This statement can be rendered into a scary scenario indeed.

a) maximizing crowding-in: government spending and productivity growth;

The words 'maximizing' and 'government spending' should set off alarms to Americans. Considering it's the single most abused element of our government.

b) price, output and debt stability: countercyclical fiscal policies, macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability.

They seem to be concretizing the economic doctrine that got us here in the first place..., market manipulation..., at least, that's how I infer the phrase "countercyclical fiscal policies". Flattening the curve.

..issue of whether current public spending is also linked to productivity growth, and of what kind: education and health or more broadly, social assistance programs including intergovernmental transfers.

public spending (education, health, social assistance programs, intergovernmental transfers) = counter productivity to growth.

Apparently they question the value of 'liberal' programs... isn't that the right term? We can't have lowly 'states' helping each other out economically..., sanctions anyone?

... budget procedures, given the long-term objective of creating fiscal space for economic growth with social inclusion through the business cycle.

I get it! We CAN have social inclusion..., as long as it is 'tied' to the profit model. Joy!

public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR).

(above bold underline mine)

There is a borrowing requirement!? OK, could this be any more transparent as to whom it serves?

This agenda is quite revealing all by itself, no?

[continued]


[edit on 11-10-2008 by Maxmars]

[edit on 11-10-2008 by Maxmars]

-------------------------

What's new with our happenin' G20?

Let's see...

NEW PRIORITY

1 - Competition in Financial Markets,
2 - Clean Energy and Economic Development and Fiscal Elements of Growth and Development

In regards to number '2' - how many "ands" can you throw in one phrase?

Considering that all those 'ands' tie everything into ONE TOPIC "Clean Energy/Economic Development/Fiscal Elements of Growth and Development" is singular... in other words Clean Energy IS to be considered as an aspect of 'Fiscal' growth and development. Again, it's an inference but no profit = no clean energy.

Then there are the 'regular' "what's new"

Global Economic Growth

In regard to the threat posed by inflation and commodity and energy prices to the global economy the International Monetary Fund's first deputy managing director John Lipsky says,

There’s always a risk, but we really haven’t sat down and finalized [our growth forecasts]...

What are you waiting for? Isn't this PRECISLEY the kind of thing this monstrosity called the IMF is SUPPOSED to be doing at all times?

Inflation

Rising inflation and lingering financial market turmoil will be under the spotlight...

The use of the word 'lingering' implies that some form of action has taken place and has 'ended', thus what we are experiencing is the blow back from that action. Gee, considering the definition of inflation, I wonder if it could be the Central Banks' unilateral flooding of the world markets with unbacked cash, while acting to invalidate the risk of their owners in morally hazardous lending practices; causing a market response locking down credit while the theives make their escape? Nah... I must be mistaken.

..., dwindling supplies of traditional energy and climate change create new investment opportunities.

Many have stated that the 'investment opportunities' of the global acceptance of mankinds notional ability to activiey effect 'climate change' represent a moral hazard all its own. This fundamental statement shows clearly that climate chance is viewed as 'an opportunity'... beware moral hazard.

Sovereign Wealth Funds

Doesn't "soveriegn" mean that it's none elses busines what one nation decides to do with their own wealth? Guess not to them. Especially since they managed to turn it all to debt and credit. Wealth? What wealth?

Financial Regulation and Supervision

Amazing, this whole section seems to exist to drop names of the financial hero's of the day, with a notable excerpt from new American Tzar of the Treasury - Paulson. In the end the entire section can summarized as .. " We gotta do something!"

Oil Prices

'nuf said.

International Financial Architecture

Oh brother.., "...[Asia] has more responsibilities in the global arena and that the rules of the game need to adapt to keep pace.”
(text bolded by me)

So we have to change the rules..., because Asia is emerging ..., wait a minute... did he say "game"?

Institutional Reform

With the state of the universe increasingly ulcerous, with the Group of Eight and the United Nations Security Council hardly representative of the new global order, Mr. Paul Martin, former Prime Minister of Canada, has intensified his campaign for a new international body of 15 or 20 powers to give global governance a chance.

"...hardly representative of the new global order..."

Yes, you heard him. It is now 'here' as far as the financial folks are concerned. October 2008 - the month and year the music died.

Martin said his talks with the U.S. presidential contenders, particularly the Democrat, Barack Obama, were most encouraging. “The Obama people … understand this issue. They understand that the United States has to do things
differently.” The stated preference of Mr. McCain is for a league of democracies. But Mr. Martin explained that, for a new body to be effective, it can't leave out megapowers such as China.

Umm, I'm an American. And these two people, the one's recognized as our 'choices' are generally 'on board" with this plan. Hmmm. Not sure I like this. How bout you?

"...a new forum for global governance is essential."

Indeed, or perhaps we should just consider restoring the order without the financial masters and their dogmatic adherence to 'fractional reserve bankning' at the wheel. Oops, did I say that?

Enhancing the Role of the G20

Great! Self-promotion and replication. Like a virus.

-----------------------

The rest is proforma - who's who, except. They include a 10-year old list of who ARE the central banks. I wonder if THEY don't know who is curently running "the game"










Thank you for your patience in reading this humble submission by

Yours Truly,

MM

[edit on 11-10-2008 by Maxmars]

reply to post by alphabetaone


It's going to take time to appreciate all that Maxmars has said.

Meantime I'd like to address one of your points:

While sovereignty DOES without a doubt cast a certain competition among nations, by using THEIR language, they control the single most fear inducing entity on earth, the finances.

Interesting you should use the 'S' word.

What on earth do you (or anyone else) think this means? -

The stated preference of Mr. McCain is for

a league of democracies.

(page 9)


I see Maxmars picked up on this too, noting that both Obama and McCain are apparently already on board this train:

Umm, I'm an American. And these two people, the one's recognized as our 'choices' are generally 'on board" with this plan. Hmmm. Not sure I like this. How bout you?

Any current politicians in the US heard of an election manifesto? (Or is there no point, seeing as all this is (to quote Mr Martin, former President of Canada) "inevitable".

On the other hand the document seems to hint at some kind of difference between the two candidates:

Mr. Paul Martin, former Prime Minister of Canada, has intensified his campaign for a new international body of 15 or 20 powers to give global governance a chance. While not divulging details, Martin said his talks with the U.S. presidential contenders, particularly the Democrat, Barack Obama, were most encouraging. “The Obama people … understand this issue. They understand that the United States has to do things
differently.”

I have to admit I find this confusing. How can 'giving global governance a chance' equate to the US doing things differently? And how does Obama's preference differ from a 'League of Nations', McCain's stated preferred option?

It seems to be saying McCain prefers more US sovereignty and cooperation between sovereign nations.

How can Obama be more right-wing / NWO than McCain?

Can anyone untangle this? Or is it just a deliberate illusion of difference?








[edit on 11/10/08 by pause4thought]